"In France not a single national newspaper is profitable, despite around €1.2 billion ($1.54 billion) in direct and indirect government subsidies, according to Olivier Fleurot, the boss of MSLGROUP, a communications firm, and a former chief executive at the Financial Times, part-owner of The Economist."

Having canceled the major local newaper, because it had become pretty useless, I depend on TV news, the New York Times (paid for) and WashPost ON LINE as well as my Economist subscription, which I read on my computer (because I can enlarger the print for my comfort).

Restricting the news snippets on the Google "gadgets" added to me opening page would be foolhardy and cause me to totally disregard the offending organizations.

In my Bookmarks, under "media", I have the world's newspapers from Germany to Britain and Israel to India and Japan. I rarely get to these via Google, but go there to see what they have to say about a current event. If I had to pay for all of these, I would just be less well informed. - I listen to the BBC America without paying a fee for my TV in England and would miss it if it were behind a pay wall.

If I had to pay for Google to search for goods and information, I would just have to use the library. But I have to check on my doctor when he prescribes a medication and do so at the NIH and Mayo Clinic sites - How else can I spot the bad side effects and stop the ue before it really does damage to me.

Suppose somebody sets up an orchard with a view to selling fruit. You break into the orchard and take the fruit, selling it in your own shop. Shouldn't you be made to pay? That is part of a State's proper job, discouraging theft. The publishing industry is NOT voluntarily contributing free news to Google: just read the story!

Some media may deem it advantageous to supply free news to Google. I have nothing against it (in fact, I even benefit from that). It's strictly their business. It means they have other sources of income.

The Economist may want to employ more robust heuristics if this is the model it is to depend on in the future. The current implementation is easily circumvented. (an email proffering free advice on the matter has thus far been ignored)

And there's the rub, sir. Well said. Even free I refuse to read most of it (all of the political blogs on Economist, for example). If they were to attempt to charge me one cent, I would laugh and walk away.
Actually, I would probably pay for the tech and science articles in Economist, if the stench of the hypocrisy and ideological blinkers from the political blogs didn't contaminate the very air. :)

Industries that sell something will also produce the biased "news" helping them to sell. Unbiased news help us picture ourselves what the truth is. It is one of the beacons of democracy and free thought. Google does not produce news, but takes it for free, uses it to produce advertising contacts, and sells them. The news-publishing industry declines. There may even come a time when nobody will produce news except those who sell something else and have a vested interest in distorting the truth. Google should be made to pay, and the sooner the better.